"Being an activist is the rent we pay for being on the planet." Alice Walker

What kind of intellectual vacuum do you need to live in to make this case? Here it is.

Social security will go bankrupt when the social security trust fund is depleted.

The trust fund is really just a pile of IOUs anyway.

To save social security we need to privatize it and let folks invest their social security payments in the stock market.

Privatizing social security costs a lot of money.

The solution is to fund privatization by using the social security trust fund surplus - the money represented by those IOUs.

Did you follow that? We need reform because the trust fund isn't solvent and it's not real money anyway so let's use the money represented by the trust fund to pay to privatize social security. And the privatization would end when the surplus ended, providing a very short window for the program (although we all know how much the Republicans like passing laws that expire as a strategy for permanent laws - they just extend the expiration date again and again).

And note, this plan does nothing to address the actual solvency issue - it just redirects the spending of surplus dollars from other programs. The "solution" doesn't solve anything except the impasse over how to fund privatization. Of course, we'd see huge cuts in other programs that are currently funded with the surplus, but hey, who cares? It's not like the money is going towards essential programs like health care for the poor or anything.... except it is.

This proposal has all the hallmarks of a political maneuver designed not to solve any real problems, but to support an ideological position (privatization) and to undermine the opposition (Dems opposed to privacy and Pubs concerned about the deficit).

We'll being hearing grand announcements about the willingness of Pubs to compromise and great condemnations about the Democrats unwillingness to propose solutions. But the bottom line here is that the Pubs aren't compromising - they're still chasing privatization without addressing solvency. And the Dems aren't oppositional simply because they won't propose a program that supports the conservative ideological demand to privatize social security.

If the Republicans are serious in their claims that social security faces insolvency or bankruptcy, that there's a crisis, they'll propose a solution to that problem instead of ignoring while they chase their ideological dream of privatization.

Information on kids, boys really, is being tracked by the Pentagon and shared with a database marketing firm. Nice.

When No Child Left Behind was passed, the public's attention was on the law's
emphasis on testing and accountability, on the elimination of the "soft bigotry of low expectations". No-one really
noticed that it included a requirement for schools to turn over student
data to the Pentagon - to make sure that no child was left behind in
their recruitment efforts.

The Pentagon is collecting student data that has traditionally been protected by privacy laws. They're gathering our children's names, ethnicity, GPA, major areas of study, and social security numbers. Our schools are required to turn over the data to the Pentagon if they don't want to lose their federal funding. Parents can opt-out if they'd like.

Of course, opting out is the weakest privacy option here. Most online vendors, particularly those collecting personally identifiable information, have to use an "opt-in" option, where the individual has to choose to share their data. Not the Pentagon, though.

To make matters worse, now we learn that the Pentagon has outsourced the student data management to a database marketing company. If I understand correctly, the laws proscribing the government's collection of data on citizens don't apply when the government agency uses a non-governmental third party. Nice loophole there. The company working with the Pentagon on this project - tracking children - will be creating detailed profiles on these kids by matching the data schools provide with data available in other public records. The result is a corporation with a giant database containing detailed personally identifiable information on children and young adults. That database will grow over the years as more and more children reach the age of sixteen.

And that database built on the educational records of our children will not only be used to recruit them for the military. The Pentagon has the right, with no notice to the public, to share the data with state tax authorities, law enforcement, and Congress.

It's a complete routing of the Privacy Act, which limits the government's right to track citizens.

And it's funny, you know? The government has long recognized privacy rights relating to student data - those rights are protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA defines who has access to what student data under what conditions. It explicitly prohibits schools from sharing specific data without the written authorization of parents, data that the Pentagon is now collecting and giving to a database marketing firm and making available to tax authorities and Congress (there have always been exceptions for law enforcement access). What data does the Pentagon have unique access to, data that FERPA previously made available only for educational purposes? Social security numbers, student ID numbers, race and nationality, and gender.

(A lot of schools don't collect social security numbers specifically to avoid being used as an extension of the INS. I wouldn't be surprised if even more began eliminating their practice or collecting that information.)

The NCLB law requiring schools to turn over private student information to the Pentagon voids FERPA when it comes to the military and apparently military subcontractors. It undermines the Privacy Act and allows the government to build a database of its citizens, starting when they're sixteen. In twenty years, they'll have detailed records for everyone age sixteen to thirty-six. I don't like this at all, but I'd feel better if I knew the Pentagon was destroying the data once they knew a kid didn't want to go into the military. And I'd feel better if the government took our privacy rights seriously. Especially the rights of children.

In response to a question about the relevance of an anti-flag burning amendment to the Constitution to people's daily lives, the House Republican Conference Chairman, Republican Deborah Pryce said:

"You know,
this is probably as relevant to people's lives now as any other time because of what's going on with Democrats putting everybody
in the world before our soldiers and the American safety. They're so
worried about what's going on at Guantanamo Bay. And the flag has a
place in that debate."

Yep, that's exactly what us Dems are doing - putting our troops and our country's safety at the bottom of the list. That's why we're pushing for an exit strategy from Iraq, for veteran's benefits, for honorable treatment of detainees to ensure that if our soldiers are captured we have a moral basis for demanding humane treatment. That's why we're paying attention to the Downing Street Memos and demanding to know if the administration really tried to avoid sending our soldiers into battle. that's why we're fighting for comprehensive information on the Bolton nomination, working to be sure that our UN representative is credible and committed to international diplomacy. That's why we fought so hard for the Department of Homeland Security. Why we pushed for the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission to make sure we did knew what we did right and wrong and were best positioned to stop it from happening again. Yep, it's all about our terrible priorities.

I'll paraphrase the recent comments of Rep. Hostettler: "Like a moth to a flame, Republicans can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Democrats." Of course, he was talking about Democrats' response to Christianity, making my point all over again.

Well, it looks like 9/11 didn't change everything, although it seems to be relevant for everything the Republicans want to do.

The latest cause celebre to come under the aura of 9/11 is the an old canard - a proposal for a Constitutional amendment banning the physical desecration of the American flag. What's the 9/11 connection? The bill's sponsor, Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, says that allowing the burning of the flag is "an insult to all those who perished" in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

I don't know. I'm thinking that preserving the right to free speech, especially when it offends us, is a pretty good way of honoring them. On top of that, I'm guessing that another way our Congressional leaders can honor them is by showing a little integrity - something good old Duke doesn't seem to have in spades.

You see, I suspect that Duke is standing up for the flag in a burst of patriotism in order to divert our attention from his less patriotic activities. Like selling his house to a Mitchell Wade, head of the defense contractor MZM. He sold it for $700,000 more than it was worth. Duke pocketed that extra money, but contractor Wade took a $700,000 loss after putting the house on the market shortly after he bought it. There's a grand jury investigation underway to find out exactly what's behind this transaction. But hey, I'm sure it's nothing. Majority Leader Tom DeLay assures us that everything's above board and that Duke is an honorable man.

You might think this profitable real estate transaction was a one-off, that somehow Duke fell into a great deal. But you'd have to revise that opinion upon learning where Duke resides while in DC, while conducting the business of the defense contractor people. He lives on a yacht owned by that same defense contractor, Wade Mitchell of MZM. Of course, he says he's paying rent but one wonders why the yacht is named "Duke Stir".

Did I mention that Duke is a member of the House subcommittee that controls the disbursement of defense dollars? Before MZM got cozy with Duke, they were flat-lining. But what a shock to find their fortunes changing at just the time they got into their real estate deal with Duke. And they've been going like gangbusters. Why in the last year alone, MZM had roughly $65 million dollars in business with the Pentagon, some of it gained in no-bid awards where no competing bids are considered.

Bottom line? Despite Duke's military service in Vietnam and in the Air Force, I don't think he's in a position to lecture the rest of us on what honors the memory of the victims of 9/11. Choosing what contractors do the work so central to our security that most of it is classified, choosing based on who lines your pockets, is the real desecration of their memories. Not flag burning. He should know better.

Why in the world would CIA Director Porter Goss say that he's pretty sure he knows where bin Laden is but can't go get him because we have to respect the sovereignty of other countries?

I'm not suggesting that we run roughshod over the sovereignty of other nations and I suspect that capturing bin Laden might not be a viable task for a covert special ops group. But I would think that this might be a viable topic for diplomatic discussions.

What Porter Goss is telling us here is that we lack the international heft to negotiate access to take down bin Laden. It's a statement of diplomatic impotence, a shrug at the weakened influence the US wields. It's a declaration of defeat - "we know where he is but we can't get him". We can't get the cooperation we need.

We've come a long way since the days after 9/11 when a French newspaper declared that "we are all Americans". Haven't we?

I saw Condoleezza Rice on This Week yesterday - all in all a "no news" interview as she spun the administration's message, using questions as cues to begin the spin. For example, a question about the Downing Street Memos gave us no comments on the memos but instead offered a regurgitation of the history of Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions. Not surprising.

What didn't work at all, though, was the rather inartful effort to avoid the term "exit strategy" in favor of the Rumsfeldian "success strategy". The spin here was transparent, even juvenile. It smacks of disrespect for the listener - as though we'll suddenly sigh a breath of relief that we're talking about success instead of an exit. It suggests that we're just a bit too slow to notice the change in terms and that we'll suddenly feel better about Iraq because of all this talk of success.

It didn't work and frankly, our leaders should have more respect for themselves and the public. We deserve better.

It looks like those on the right side of the aisle have found their latest diversion - you know, something to keep the public from talking about the real issues. This time it's Sen. Durbin's comments suggesting that if you didn't know better, you might mistake the description of the treatment suffered by one Gitmo detainee as treatment dished out by the worst of the world's dictators - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.

Attacking Durbin conveniently enables the Pubs from addressing the real issue - detainee treatment. Now, I'll be happy to admit that Durbin's comments were politically incorrect - but were they inaccurate? Here's the treatment described in the FBI report:

detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position for18-24 hours

withholding of food and water

detainees urinating and defecating on themselves

lowered temperatures to induce shaking in detainee

increased temperatures to over 100 degrees with no ventilation

severe treatment that leaves detainee virtually unconscious after pulling out piles of own hair

Would you guess the US? Or would you guess the first repressive and torturous regime that came to mind? I'm guessing the latter.

Now there are calls to formally censure Sen. Durbin, initiated by Newt Gingrich but supported by plenty of those on the right. I've got a proposal. The Pubs can censure Durbin for highlighting the un-American treatment afforded these detainees with politically incorrect analogies if they issue censures to the folks listed below, for the comments or actions cited:

Newt Gingrich - for the hypocrisy of leading the charge to impeach Clinton for lying about sex while regularly committing adultery with one of his staffers and later divorcing his cancer-stricken wife to marry that staffer

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay - for blaming the war in Iraq on environmentalists, claiming that they put the lives of "snail darters" above the lives of our troops

Sen. Rick Santorum - for comparing Democrats to Hitler

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist - for using his experience as a doctor to mislead the public on the health of Terri Schiavo based on a video tape of her, and later, when proved wrong by the autopsy, denying that he ever diagnosed her from afar.

Sen. John Cornyn - for suggesting that violence against judges was an understandable response from those who thought judicial activism was running amok

Former Sec. of Education Rod Paige - for saying the National Education Association was a terrorist organization

Former Sec. of State Colin Powell (and Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush) - for frequent and public claims that we had found WMD in Iraq, implying that mobile labs found were for biological weapons and not for legal artillery weather balloons as established by the Defense Intelligence Agency

Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld - for approving the illegal hiding of a detainee from the Red Cross and yet claiming with no defense that it was legal, additionally for approving interrogation practices that weren't legal under international or domestic laws

Former NSC Director and current Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice - for frequent misrepresentations of the state of WMD in Iraq and for using a reference to a "mushroom cloud" on CNN as a means of generating public support for war by scaring the public

Vice President Dick Cheney- for telling Sen. Leahy on the Senate floor to "go f**k yourself" and misrepresenting the connection between Iraq and 9/11, going so far as to claim that debunked intelligence of a Prague meeting betweeen Iraqi security and the lead 9/11 terrorist was in fact true when it surely was not

President Bush - for misleading the nation on the need to invade Iraq, from WMD to Iraqi support of terrorists and the alleged relationship with al Qaida

And hey, that's my short list. Feel free to add your own censure targets in the comments section.

Can someone with access please remind President Bush that Iraq never attacked us? He keeps saying that we're at war because we were attacked - but he's talking about the war in Iraq and they didn't attack us, see?

We went to war because we were
attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out
there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. (Bush Radio Address)

You might as well fill him in on why we're still at war too. In Iraq it's true that those insurgents want to hurt us and our country. But that's not really the heart of the problem. Someone should let Bush know that it's kind of unsurprising that folks would fight back when another country invades their country and stays. That our inability to secure the peace after toppling Saddam's military was a really good way of making sure that we'd still be at war today. And it helps that we were unable to secure the borders so that it's really easy for the real bad guys to get into the country and try to kill Americans and their allies.

But I don't know if Bush will understand that until he understands that we aren't at war in Iraq because we were attacked. Now it's true, Bush may have had some trouble getting public support for invading Iraq if we hadn't been attacked. The threat of terrorism, when combined with the threat of WMD, was just the ticket for getting the public support he needed. Of course, it helped to imply that Saddam has something to do with 9/11 and that al Qaida and Iraq were working together hand in glove. Yep, that helped. It's easier to invade a country if you can get everyone to believe that they made the first move.

But, see, the truth is that more and more Americans understand that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, that the war in Iraq wasn't a legitimate response to 9/11, that Iraq didn't make the first move. Americans are understanding that we really aren't safer, that it doesn't make sense to say we're "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here", that the loss of training camps in Afghanistan isn't so bad given the real-world training gained by fighting in Iraq. Americans are starting to think again and look past the fear and someone really ought to let Bush know.

Bush needs to smarten up and realize the landscape has changed. He ought to realize that talking about victory in Iraq and terrorists and national security and staying the course isn't the same as having an exit strategy. He ought to realize that we're losing patience with the preacher-in-chief and want to see real leadership.

Can someone with access let him know? Because I'm really not sure how much longer Americans can suspend their disbelief.

To every conservative who dismisses the Downing Street Memo with the claim that "it's old news", I demand that they now and forever refrain from referring to any real or alleged misdeed by the Clintons, given that those claims too are "old news".

In his article on the informal hearings Rep. Conyers held on the Downing Street Memo, Dana Milbank wrote:

The glitches and the antiwar theatrics proved something of a
distraction from the message the organizers aimed to deliver: that for
the Bush White House, as lawyer John C. Bonifaz put it, the British
memo is "the equivalent to the revelation that there was a taping
system in the Nixon White House."

Unfortunately, Milbank was sucked in completely by those theatrics and by the sub-standard setting for the hearing. Instead of providing balanced reporting - which would include a critique of the testimony that was subjective along with a review of the testimony that was not, he took an entirely dismissive approach to the whole thing.

Sure, the hearing was in a basement. But he neglected to mention that Republicans denied Rep. Conyers the use of a hearing room in the Capitol. And yes, some of the testimony was opinion outside the mainstream. But the most compelling testimony was that of John Bonifaz, who repeatedly highlighted the inconsistency between the information contained in the British documents and the information that President Bush provided Congress when he requested authorization to use force against Iraq.

The point made by Bonifaz, which is a legitimate and important one, is that if President Bush willfully misinformed Congress then it's an impeachable offense. He's calling for an inquiry - not an impeachment - and made it clear that if an inquiry showed that inaccuracies in the information provided by Bush were truly and solely due to poor intelligence of a fundamental breakdown in the communication channels between the intelligence community and the administration, that we'd close the chapter on this issue. He's not a crackpot and he's not making wild claims. Milbank conveniently ignored him.

Instead, he picked the low hanging fruit and highlighted one witnesses opinionated testimony on why Bush went to war. He dismissed the woman whose son died in Iraq as lacking objectivity - which she made clear she did. He described the Conyers group as "playing house" and highlighted the more extreme positions of activists and supporters, minimizing the real issues that exist. He neglected to mention the 560,000 US citizens that signed a petition asking for answers to questions raised by the Downing Street Memo. Are we all crackpots, extremists, folks playing house instead of dealing in reality?

Dana Milbank did his readers a disservice and his editors let it pass, publishing an opinion piece that was mascarading as news.

So much for the vaunted liberal media.

UPDATE: I'm not the only one upset by the amateur and incomplete coverage provided by Dana Milbank. Rep. Conyers wrote a letter to the editors of the Washington Post and copied the Raw Story on it. The letter is an excellent rebuttal to the incomplete and selective reporting provided by Milbank. Go read it.